Suhrid Barua has an unbridled passion for business and sports. He has worked/written for media houses like Thatscricket.com, The New Indian Express, MiD Day, Maharastra Herald (now Sakaal Times), Pune Mirror (Times of India's tabloid daily), CricketCountry, The Assam Tribune, The Telegraph and Sportskeeda. Watch out for this blog space for interviews, analysis, match coverage, stats figures and much more!

Monday, November 28, 2016

How poor managers can cause serious reputational damage to a brand!

In a fiercely competitive marketplace, companies always have one goal in mind – how it can be ‘best heard’. Companies are increasingly ‘taking extra care’ to ensure they do not suffer any reputational damage, which can go a long way in them losing customers/clients.

It is crystal clear that managers play a ‘crucial’ role in ensuring companies does not suffer from serious reputational damage. It is an open secret that no brand wants anyone to talk ‘bad’ about a company as it can translate into negative word-of-mouth. But why then managers have a big role in ensuring a brand is not at risk of any reputational damage? Well, it is easy to understand that companies expect managers to run their day-to-day affairs. However, in pursuit of ‘driving the day-to-day operations managers at times, operate in such a way that it causes serious harm to the reputation of a company.

Every manager will be different but a common goal of all managers is to get the best out of their teams. The problem is that a lot of times, managers do exceed their brief (if not at all times) and resort to uncalled-for measures as they believe that those are the best ways to raise the performance of their underlings. Of course, the corporate world will have numerous instances of managers ill-treating their underlings. To put it bluntly, some managers are ‘more demanding than necessary’ and put extra pressure on their team members. They believe that this is the best recipe to scale up productivity. Many managers at times are known to act as ‘control freaks’ and want to carve out a dominating presence. No wonder, there is a saying in the corporate world that ‘people leave managers, not companies’.Gallup survey on worker-manager relationshipsA survey conducted by American research company Gallup, only reinforces the fragile worker-manager relationships. As per Gallup’s 2015 survey, 50% of employees (among the 7,200 adults surveyed) ‘leave their company to get away from their bosses’. This survey is a true reflection of how managers operate in the corporate world. It also throws light on the prevalent, undesired worker-manager relationships.So why then managers cut a sorry picture in workplaces? Well, people get promotions into managerial roles not always because they are really ‘good at managing people’. More often people ascend the career ladder because of outstanding performance in their earlier position.Coping with a bad managerThe Gallup survey on the worker-manager relationships brings a few things in focus. How does an employee cope with a bad manager? An underling rarely questions his manager or gets into an argument bout for the fear of either losing his job or getting a bad appraisal. On many occasions, these underlings silently put up with ‘whatever these so-called bad managers throw at them’. They seemingly resign to their fate. Quitting the job to ‘escape a bad manager’ seems the only realistic option for these underlings. More importantly, these bunch of employees turn disgruntled and ‘generously badmouth’ the company in front of all and sundry when they leave the company.What is significant here is that these employees probably have ‘nothing against the company’. They end up castigating the company purely based on their bad experience with their managers – something brands are looking to take cognisance of. It is only bad managers, who ruin the reputation of a company – it is their modus operandi that drives employees to exit the firm. It is seldom that managers across the globe face ramifications for poor treatment of their underlings.Of course, there are companies that keep a close watch on how managers conduct themselves. They grill employees when they want to put in their papers. The objective is to know if these employees are quitting due to personal issues or better prospects or because of having to deal with bad managers, who brutalise them. But the percentage of such companies is far too small.Managers are judged on results they achieveSupervisors rate managers often on the results they achieve and not how well they treat the people below them. For example, if managers do not achieve the desired results but treat their underlings well, it is of no help to them in the long run, in terms of securing a promotion.The bottom-line is that companies must look to put a mechanism in place so that their reputation is not besmirched due to the unbecoming behaviour of managers. They hire managers to ‘ensure smooth running of the day-to-day operations of a company and not ruin them’.

Going forward, we could see a trend of brands keeping a ‘strict watch’ on how managers operate, as they strive to protect their reputation against damage inflicted by poor working ways of managers.